JUDGMENT : 1. This Writ petition is filed for issuing a Writ of Certified Mandamus, to quash the impugned order passed by the respondent in Na.Ka.No.82431/L4/2008-2, dated 05.12.2008 and consequently direct the respondent to consider the petitioner for employment on compassionate ground and to appoint the petitioner as Livestock Inspector. 2. The brief facts that are necessary for the purpose of disposal of the Writ petition are as follows: The petitioner herein has completed his Higher Secondary course. He belongs to Scheduled Caste community. The petitioner's father late N.Rengasamy served in the respondent Department as Livestock Assistant. Since, the petitioner's father died on 14.06.1990, his mother made a request seeking appointment on compassionate ground in the year 1991. The respondent appointed his mother as Gardener, by an order dated 26.02.1996. Thereafter, at request of the petitioner's mother, the said appointment order was cancelled by the respondent, by an order dated 28.06.1996, in Na.Ka. No.127042/RR2/1996. 2(i) Thereafter, the petitioner made a request to the respondent for appointment on compassionate ground on 14.03.1996. Subsequently, the petitioner's mother made a request on 24.06.1999, to the respondent for appointment of her son, namely, the petitioner herein on compassionate ground. The respondent called for application for the post of Livestock Inspector Training and the petitioner was directed to submit all the original certificates for verification and also for inclusion of his name for the post of Livestock Inspector Training list on compassionate ground. The petitioner was also directed to give his willingness in furtherance about the selection process and to furnish the entire records to the Higher Authorities for consideration. On 31.01.2000, the respondent once again called for certificate verification by proceedings in Na.Ka.No.34711/RR2/96, dated 31.01.2000. The petitioner's original certificates were forwarded by the Zonal Joint Director of Animal Husbandry Department of Tanjore to the respondent. Even though the petitioner submitted all the original records, he was periodically informed that his turn for sponsoring the employment was not reached. 2(ii) The petitioner received a communication from the respondent that the Government has banned all the recruitment to the Public Services. However, once again on 08.11.2001, the respondent called for the petitioner's willingness in furtherance to training and he gave his willingness for undergoing the training for the above said post. 2(ii) The petitioner received a communication from the respondent that the Government has banned all the recruitment to the Public Services. However, once again on 08.11.2001, the respondent called for the petitioner's willingness in furtherance to training and he gave his willingness for undergoing the training for the above said post. Further on 25.08.2004, the respondent sent a letter to the petitioner stating that his name was empaneled in the list of compassionate appointment candidates and he was assigned serial number 160(A). Thereafter, the respondent called for his willingness to undergo the Department training, by proceedings in Na.Ka. No.16893/E/04-2, dated 22.09.2004. 2(iii) The respondent once again called for the original certificates on 17.10.2007 and other connected records for sponsoring the petitioner for the training by proceedings in Na.Ka. No.3495/Aa/07, dated 22.10.2007. Along with that letter, the respondent sent a seniority list to the petitioner, stating that the petitioner's name was empaneled in the list of eligible compassionate appointment candidates and he was empaneled by assigning serial number 44. Thereafter, the petitioner received another communication from the respondent stating that the respondent wants to verify and clarify from the Government as to whether the candidate, who gave a representation after three years from the date of death of the Government employee can be considered for the appointment on the basis of compassionate ground. Finally, the respondent passed an order in Na.Ka.No.82431/L4/2008-2 stating that he is not eligible for the appointment on compassionate ground because of reflex of time after the death of his father. Aggrieved over the same, the present Writ petition has been filed. 3. When the matter is taken for consideration, the petitioner made detailed submissions adverting to the averments made in the affidavit. Furthermore, he has also invited the attention of this Court, to a Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.120 Labour and Employment Department, dated 26.06.1995 and submitted that the said Government Order clearly shows that three years period specified to submit an application for the appointment on compassionate ground, is applicable only to the dependants of the Government servants who died while in service on or after 26.06.1995 and the said order is not applicable to the past cases. 4. 4. As far as the present case is concerned, the petitioner's father died on 14.06.1990 and hence, the date of death of his father is much earlier to the date of issuance of Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.120 Labour and Employment Department, dated 26.06.1995. The three years period fixed for submitting the application from the date of death of the Government employee cannot be applied to the case of the petitioner. But, without considering these aspects, the respondent has rejected the petitioner's request for compassionate appointment. 5. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon a Judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.323 and 718 of 2015, dated 10.06.2015, in the case of the Commissioner and Director, Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services, Chennai Vs. G.Karthiban and A.P.Chandramathi and submitted that in an identical situation, this Court has directed the appellant to consider the application of the respondents in that case on merits and to give appointment if otherwise the respondents are found eligible. 6. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that by inviting the attention of this Court, a Letter that was issued by the Labour and Employment Department, Chennai, in Letter(Ms) No.202, dated 08.10.2007, stating that the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.120 Labour and Employment Department, dated 26.06.1995, wherein it has been stated that three years period is fixed for submitting an application for compassionate ground from the date of death of the Government employee, subsequently, in the said letter, it has been stated that the time limit of three years for filing an application from the date of death of the Government employee would be applicable to all the cases including where the Government Servant had died in service even prior to 26.06.1995 also. 7. Further the learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that in the present case, the three years period fixed for seeking appointment on compassionate appointment would apply. In the instant case, though the petitioner's father died on 14.06.1990 much earlier to the date of issuance of Government Order in G.O.Ms. No.120 Labour and Employment Department, dated 26.06.1995, as per the Letter issued by the Labour and Employment Department, Chennai, in Letter(Ms)No.202, dated 08.10.2007, the petitioner is not entitled for appointment on compassionate ground. In the instant case, though the petitioner's father died on 14.06.1990 much earlier to the date of issuance of Government Order in G.O.Ms. No.120 Labour and Employment Department, dated 26.06.1995, as per the Letter issued by the Labour and Employment Department, Chennai, in Letter(Ms)No.202, dated 08.10.2007, the petitioner is not entitled for appointment on compassionate ground. In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner has not submitted his application for appointment on compassionate ground within a period of three years from the date of death of his father/Government employee and therefore, he is not entitled to the relief sought for. 8. Heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondent and perused the materials available on record. 9. On perusal of the entire materials available on records, it is seen that by considering the application of the petitioner, the respondent has called for Certificate verification and the petitioner has also produced the original certificates. Thereafter, on 17.10.2007, the respondent once again called for the original certificates as well as other connected records for sponsoring the training to the petitioner, by proceedings in Na.Ka.No.3495/Aa/07, dated 22.10.2007 and also sent the seniority list to the petitioner stating that his name was empaneled in the list of eligible compassionate appointment candidates and his serial number was empaneled as 44. Hence, the respondent cannot say that the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment. In this regard, it would be appropriate to place reliance in the Judgment of Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.323 and 718 of 2015, dated 10.06.2015, in the case of the Commissioner and Director, Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services, Chennai Vs. G.Karthiban and A.P.Chandramathi, wherein, this Court has held as follows: “7. It is not in dispute that applications of the Writ petitioners, though filed after three years, were entertained. The Writ petitioners were directed to submit requisite certificates, which they duly did. The Writ petitioners were further asked to submit their willingness for training. They faithfully complied with the order and submitted their willingness. The petitioners were asked to submit original certificates for verification. Thus, steps on the part of authorities gave a clear indication that the applications of the petitioners were entertained despite some delay in making applications. The Writ petitioners were further asked to submit their willingness for training. They faithfully complied with the order and submitted their willingness. The petitioners were asked to submit original certificates for verification. Thus, steps on the part of authorities gave a clear indication that the applications of the petitioners were entertained despite some delay in making applications. After such a long period, the applications could not have been rejected on the ground of being filed belatedly. 8. One cannot forget the fact that if the head of the family dies, leaving widow and the children without any source of livelihood, the dependence are always in need of some compassion and some succor from the employer. Accordingly, a policy was framed by the Government, stipulating that the application has to be made within three years. No doubt, in this case, the applications were filed belatedly. But, once applications were taken into consideration and the Writ petitioners were given hope that they may be appointed against the vacancy available in due course of time, the same could not have been rejected subsequently in August, 2009 on the ground of delay. We are, thus, contrary view then that of the one taken by the learned Single Judge. What the learned Single Judge has directed was, not to give appointment directly, but to consider the applications on merit and give appointment, if otherwise they are found eligible. The order of the learned Single Judge is perfectly legal, valid and in accordance with the well settled principles of law, warranting no interference.” 10. The said Judgment is squarely applicable to this case. In the present case, the petitioner was called for verification of original certificates and he was sponsored for training. In such circumstances, the respondent can not say that the petitioner is not eligible for appointment on compassionate ground. Hence, following the Judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.A. Nos.323 and 718 of 2015, dated 10.06.2015, in the case of the Commissioner and Director, Animal Husbandry and Veterinary Services, Chennai Vs. G.Karthiban and A.P.Chandramathi, the Writ petition is allowed and the impugned order in Na.Ka.No. 82431/L4/2008-2, dated 05.12.2008 is quashed and the respondent is directed to consider the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground on appointment if otherwise he is found eligible. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous petitions are closed.